These are quite extraordinary times and one of the “stars” to have emerged has been the Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox – someone who first came to many people’s attention when he introduced TMay at October’s CON conference.

When I saw his performance at the Conference, I thought he had potential within a strictly legalistic context, which Brexit is, and will be going forward. It suits his skills. Dunno about the human stuff that you need. Mind you neither Brown nor May possessed that

Geoffrey Cox has a good voice. That's literally his defining feature at the moment. We know almost nothing else about him. Of course, the fact that his voice was speaking a load of old bollocks has fooled nobody.

Imagine being one the finest legal minds in the country and having your fate in the hands of Andrea Leadsom.

It was striking yesterday how often Geoffrey Cox invoked his personal opinion rather than his legal opinion - he used word 'believe' over 20 times. He was articulating a faith-based position - he believes in the deal, he believes release of advice is in public interest.

This is what is particularly winding up MPs on all sides of the House.

As much as they like and respect Geoffrey Cox, they don't care about his personal, political opinion half as much as what he *actually said* in his legal advice as AG.

But where does he stand on Brexit? We've been told for months that the next Tory leader must have 'I was a Leaver' tattooed across his forehead to stand any chance. Or has this view now fallen out of fashion?

But where does he stand on Brexit? We've been told for months that the next Tory leader must have 'I was a Leaver' tattooed across his forehead to stand any chance. Or has this view now fallen out of fashion?

But where does he stand on Brexit? We've been told for months that the next Tory leader must have 'I was a Leaver' tattooed across his forehead to stand any chance. Or has this view now fallen out of fashion?

He supports Brexit, and did so at the time of the Referendum.

We don't know what his opinions are now, because if we were to find out Andrea Leadsom says soldiers will die and Russia will invade.

But where does he stand on Brexit? We've been told for months that the next Tory leader must have 'I was a Leaver' tattooed across his forehead to stand any chance. Or has this view now fallen out of fashion?

If May's Deal goes down she will likely take every Cabinet member with her, including Cox.

Tory members will demand a Canada+ or No Deal Brexit true believer like Boris or Davis.

Nigel Dodds on R5L says "unlikely" DUP will support VONC in govt if MV fails.

The DUP are going to keep May's hands glued to the wheel so long as she is hurtling toward the cliff edge

So the DUP will abstain, leaving May with a majority of 1 in the house.

Unless Sinn Fein can be cajoled into taking their seats

DUP did not comment on abstaining as far as I am aware

If the deal falls they will support HMG

Fair point- they said they will reconsider C&S only if the dodgy deal passes.

Indeed.

Listening to Sky the narrative is changing minute by minute with an amendment signed by 16 conservative mps seemingly to prevent no deal. It does look as if the sane conservatives including Nick Boles, Dominic Grieve, Nicky Morgan and Amber Rudd are making moves to recapture the party from ERG

There is so much going on but my instinct tells me we have seen peak ERG and TM deal becomes the deal or we do actually remain

Everything the media are reporting does look like the mps are acting across party to protect the country from the worst excess of brexit

Looks like they are marshalling for remain. It's the only thing that gets enough cooperating.

It was striking yesterday how often Geoffrey Cox invoked his personal opinion rather than his legal opinion - he used word 'believe' over 20 times. He was articulating a faith-based position - he believes in the deal, he believes release of advice is in public interest.

This is what is particularly winding up MPs on all sides of the House.

As much as they like and respect Geoffrey Cox, they don't care about his personal, political opinion half as much as what he *actually said* in his legal advice as AG.

Also, consider: at some point in the near future, Cox will be forced to release his legal advice and it will become VERY OBVIOUS that he has lied to Parliament.

A contempt charge and lying to Parliament are not auspicious blots on your record when looking to become PM.

How do you know he has lied if you haven't seen the advice?

Let us call it a hunch.

Surely the simplest explanation is that the original advice was overly brief and potentially inaccurate because of it? That the government would simply be embarrassed to say the Cabinet agreed based on shoddy advice?

I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

There is a wondering dynamic when you have a highly polished booming Tory being taken apart by a smarter (often Welsh) Labour opposite number. Delightful to watch.

The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

There is a factual error in the opening statement.

He says "As the United Kingdom Parliament has to give its final approval, both if a withdrawal agreement is reached and in the absence of that agreement, several members of that parliament consider that if the notice of the intention to withdraw were revocable, this would open a third way, namely remaining in the European Union in the face of an unsatisfactory Brexit."

It is not the case that the UK Parliament has to give its final approval in the absence of an agreement. It is entirely possible, even if many view it as undesirable, that the UK could leave with no further involvement of Parliament at all.

I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

There is a wondering dynamic when you have a highly polished booming Tory being taken apart by a smarter (often Welsh) Labour opposite number. Delightful to watch.

I had that feeling when Caroline Lucas popped up in the debate yesterday. It was like a magic spell being broken and reality finally returning.

Nigel Dodds on R5L says "unlikely" DUP will support VONC in govt if MV fails.

The DUP are going to keep May's hands glued to the wheel so long as she is hurtling toward the cliff edge

So the DUP will abstain, leaving May with a majority of 1 in the house.

Unless Sinn Fein can be cajoled into taking their seats

DUP did not comment on abstaining as far as I am aware

If the deal falls they will support HMG

Fair point- they said they will reconsider C&S only if the dodgy deal passes.

Indeed.

Listening to Sky the narrative is changing minute by minute with an amendment signed by 16 conservative mps seemingly to prevent no deal. It does look as if the sane conservatives including Nick Boles, Dominic Grieve, Nicky Morgan and Amber Rudd are making moves to recapture the party from ERG

There is so much going on but my instinct tells me we have seen peak ERG and TM deal becomes the deal or we do actually remain

Everything the media are reporting does look like the mps are acting across party to protect the country from the worst excess of brexit

Looks like they are marshalling for remain. It's the only thing that gets enough cooperating.

If they engineer it so we remain they will be cursed and vilified by their own party. And praised and lauded by future generations.

I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

In a sense it doesn't matter whether he is any good. The bet is 50/1 (now at around 34). If there is any further interest in Cox and he becomes a runner, then the odds will drop and we can all lay it off.

eh, I'm a sucker for an authoritative booming. Corbyn actually has a pretty decent voice too.

Corbyn has a decent voice? You are kidding me? His weaselly voice is about as commanding as his appearance. I don't know Cox at all, but having just looked up his background I think he most likely would show Corbyn up at the despatch box for the pathetic lightweight that he is. I don't want to see a Brexit enthusiast for PM, but it would be a far better option than Worzel Gummidge. Bring on Brian Blessed!

I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

Well, Keir Starmer was quoting Jacob Rees-Mogg earlier today, did you cringe at that too?

I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

He's a successful barrister so he's clearly not a buffoon. His political skill particularly at senior levels is, however, unknown.

The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

There is a factual error in the opening statement.

He says "As the United Kingdom Parliament has to give its final approval, both if a withdrawal agreement is reached and in the absence of that agreement, several members of that parliament consider that if the notice of the intention to withdraw were revocable, this would open a third way, namely remaining in the European Union in the face of an unsatisfactory Brexit."

It is not the case that the UK Parliament has to give its final approval in the absence of an agreement. It is entirely possible, even if many view it as undesirable, that the UK could leave with no further involvement of Parliament at all.

It is certainly a rare foray into national legislative procedures for the Court.

Fortunately for the A-G, I do not think it is necessary to support the conclusion on admissibility.

The situation is very different from the manufactured disputes which form the backbone of CJEU jurisprudence in this area.

170. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice should answer the question referred by the Court of Session, Inner House, First Division (Scotland) as follows:

When a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union allows the unilateral revocation of that notification, until such time as the withdrawal agreement is formally concluded, provided that the revocation has been decided upon in accordance with the Member State’s constitutional requirements, is formally notified to the European Council and does not involve an abusive practice.

But where does he stand on Brexit? We've been told for months that the next Tory leader must have 'I was a Leaver' tattooed across his forehead to stand any chance. Or has this view now fallen out of fashion?

No idea who the next Tory leader will be, but I do know that the next one to win a General election hasn't been born yet.

eh, I'm a sucker for an authoritative booming. Corbyn actually has a pretty decent voice too.

Corbyn has a decent voice? You are kidding me? His weaselly voice is about as commanding as his appearance. I don't know Cox at all, but having just looked up his background I think he most likely would show Corbyn up at the despatch box for the pathetic lightweight that he is. I don't want to see a Brexit enthusiast for PM, but it would be a far better option than Worzel Gummidge. Bring on Brian Blessed!

I think his voice is decent yes. And I cannot call it weaselly compared to his predecessor (no slur on ed m, I've been told I look and sound not unlike a less handsome ed m)

170. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice should answer the question referred by the Court of Session, Inner House, First Division (Scotland) as follows:

When a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union allows the unilateral revocation of that notification, until such time as the withdrawal agreement is formally concluded, provided that the revocation has been decided upon in accordance with the Member State’s constitutional requirements, is formally notified to the European Council and does not involve an abusive practice.

That's about has hard a loss for the government as it gets.

I do no think that can be the case given the UK made no substantive submissions at all.

The question itself was People's vote v the EU, and the People's vote won over the A-G.

I do not think it is, as an opinion, so well crafted as to make the actual decision null though.

If taking back control means anything it means the absolute sovereignty of the United Kingdom parliament. The government only serves with the support of said parliament and absolutely has to follow it's express wishes. Which is why the whole contempt thing is so baffling.

Perhaps MaysMplan is to take the meaningless vote. Lose the vote. And announce that it has been carried.

I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

In a sense it doesn't matter whether he is any good. The bet is 50/1 (now at around 34). If there is any further interest in Cox and he becomes a runner, then the odds will drop and we can all lay it off.

The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

Article 153 is very interesting.

"the antidote to the misuse of the right of withdrawal can be found in the general principle that abusive practices are prohibited, established by the Court, according to which EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends and the application of EU legislation cannot be extended to cover abusive practices by economic operators. (93) That general principle could be applied in the context of Article 50 TEU, if a Member State engaged in an abusive practice of using successive notifications and revocations in order to improve the terms of its withdrawal from the European Union."

Combined with article 155

"Moreover, any abuse could occur only when a second notification of the intention to withdraw is submitted, but not by unilaterally revoking the first."

So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?

Zoom in and you will see 'imigration', with one 'm' both above and below the huge 'immigration' in the middle.

Now call me old-fashioned but I feel a valid word cloud should have one entry for each word which each word being sized proportionately to the number of times thew word is used. This has clearly been constructed unscientifically to make a (possibly valid) point. The padding words around the outside are just plain weird (plain and weird are probably in there themselves - 'etc', 'yes', 'let' and 'fit' certainly are, to pick a few random examples).

If anybody from the British Election Study would like to explain why I am wrong, I'd love to hear it.

The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

There is a factual error in the opening statement.

He says "As the United Kingdom Parliament has to give its final approval, both if a withdrawal agreement is reached and in the absence of that agreement, several members of that parliament consider that if the notice of the intention to withdraw were revocable, this would open a third way, namely remaining in the European Union in the face of an unsatisfactory Brexit."

It is not the case that the UK Parliament has to give its final approval in the absence of an agreement. It is entirely possible, even if many view it as undesirable, that the UK could leave with no further involvement of Parliament at all.

It is certainly a rare foray into national legislative procedures for the Court.

Fortunately for the A-G, I do not think it is necessary to support the conclusion on admissibility.

The situation is very different from the manufactured disputes which form the backbone of CJEU jurisprudence in this area.

No I agree. I was just surprised to see such a basic error in a judgement from such a senior official.

I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

In a sense it doesn't matter whether he is any good. The bet is 50/1 (now at around 34). If there is any further interest in Cox and he becomes a runner, then the odds will drop and we can all lay it off.

170. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice should answer the question referred by the Court of Session, Inner House, First Division (Scotland) as follows:

When a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union allows the unilateral revocation of that notification, until such time as the withdrawal agreement is formally concluded, provided that the revocation has been decided upon in accordance with the Member State’s constitutional requirements, is formally notified to the European Council and does not involve an abusive practice.

That's about has hard a loss for the government as it gets.

I do no think that can be the case given the UK made no substantive submissions at all.

The question itself was People's vote v the EU, and the People's vote won over the A-G.

I do not think it is, as an opinion, so well crafted as to make the actual decision null though.

The government made no substantive arguments, because that would have undermined its foolish argument that the question was moot since the government had no plans to revoke article 50.

Since there was actually an incredibly important question of international constitutional law at stake here, this bone-headed position effectively denuded the government of the opportunity to make any substantial representations on the question at hand.

I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

He's a successful barrister so he's clearly not a buffoon. His political skill particularly at senior levels is, however, unknown.

I never said he was a buffoon. He may well be just the man the country needs and I'll support him if that is how it turns out. I am just pointing out that his persona doesn't inspire me with confidence.

Zoom in and you will see 'imigration', with one 'm' both above and below the huge 'immigration' in the middle.

Now call me old-fashioned but I feel a valid word cloud should have one entry for each word which each word being sized proportionately to the number of times thew word is used. This has clearly been constructed unscientifically to make a (possibly valid) point. The padding words around the outside are just plain weird (plain and weird are probably in there themselves - 'etc', 'yes', 'let' and 'fit' certainly are, to pick a few random examples).

If anybody from the British Election Study would like to explain why I am wrong, I'd love to hear it.

yes indeed. If it is illustrative of a true point it can still be fake. Which makes it worse if the point is true, since why mock something up.

Mueller stuff is supposed to be dropping in the next episode week or two, potentially with a brexit angle. It's good to see the threads finally coming together. I'm not sure exactly how Stormy Daniels is going to prevent Brexit but that seems to be where it's headed.

I think the last Attorney General to become PM was Spencer Perceval - and he ended up being shot.

That said, I think it's a good tip from Mike. The cabinet is not overflowing with talent and Cox is not readily identified with any faction, which is always an advantage - and would be a *huge* advantage were a consensus leader needed in extreme circumstances, such as the government having just lost a VoNC.

The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?

So Brexit would be blocked forever ? Lol.

It is certainly a defect in logic in the opinion.

It would be much cleaner to say that it would be abusive to revoke A50 unilaterally in circumstances where MS intends to re-serve also immediately.

The opinion makes clear it would be for the ECJ to decide what counts as an abusive practice. But it would not be the second invocation of A50 that was the potentially abusive practice, but the second revocation.

I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

He's a successful barrister so he's clearly not a buffoon. His political skill particularly at senior levels is, however, unknown.

I never said he was a buffoon. He may well be just the man the country needs and I'll support him if that is how it turns out. I am just pointing out that his persona doesn't inspire me with confidence.

I never said you thought he was a buffoon. You noted many people with similar characteristics are generally buffoons. I was merely assuaging that fear with Cox, Though he may be politically clueless for all I know.

The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

Article 153 is very interesting.

"the antidote to the misuse of the right of withdrawal can be found in the general principle that abusive practices are prohibited, established by the Court, according to which EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends and the application of EU legislation cannot be extended to cover abusive practices by economic operators. (93) That general principle could be applied in the context of Article 50 TEU, if a Member State engaged in an abusive practice of using successive notifications and revocations in order to improve the terms of its withdrawal from the European Union."

Combined with article 155

"Moreover, any abuse could occur only when a second notification of the intention to withdraw is submitted, but not by unilaterally revoking the first."

So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?

The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

Article 153 is very interesting.

"the antidote to the misuse of the right of withdrawal can be found in the general principle that abusive practices are prohibited, established by the Court, according to which EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends and the application of EU legislation cannot be extended to cover abusive practices by economic operators. (93) That general principle could be applied in the context of Article 50 TEU, if a Member State engaged in an abusive practice of using successive notifications and revocations in order to improve the terms of its withdrawal from the European Union."

Combined with article 155

"Moreover, any abuse could occur only when a second notification of the intention to withdraw is submitted, but not by unilaterally revoking the first."

So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?

No, he's saying it could be an abusive practice, not that it would be. Presumably, if it were, the ECJ could impose sanctions under EU law, such as fines or restricting voting rights, and perhaps by declaring any subsequent revocation notice as invalid.

Mueller stuff is supposed to be dropping in the next episode week or two, potentially with a brexit angle. It's good to see the threads finally coming together. I'm not sure exactly how Stormy Daniels is going to prevent Brexit but that seems to be where it's headed.

What is stopping brexit is a majority of mps never wanted to do it at all and an unholy alliance of brexit ultras and remainers are seizing the chance created by an even crapper deal than expected to manufacture staying in.

Zoom in and you will see 'imigration', with one 'm' both above and below the huge 'immigration' in the middle.

Now call me old-fashioned but I feel a valid word cloud should have one entry for each word which each word being sized proportionately to the number of times thew word is used. This has clearly been constructed unscientifically to make a (possibly valid) point. The padding words around the outside are just plain weird (plain and weird are probably in there themselves - 'etc', 'yes', 'let' and 'fit' certainly are, to pick a few random examples).

If anybody from the British Election Study would like to explain why I am wrong, I'd love to hear it.

Surely it would be more likely to be fake if it didn't encompass leavers mis-spelling 'immigration'?

The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?

So Brexit would be blocked forever ? Lol.

It is certainly a defect in logic in the opinion.

It would be much cleaner to say that it would be abusive to revoke A50 unilaterally in circumstances where MS intends to re-serve also immediately.

The opinion makes clear it would be for the ECJ to decide what counts as an abusive practice. But it would not be the second invocation of A50 that was the potentially abusive practice, but the second revocation.

ECJ has given the UK a Mulligan on Brexit.

Not sure if you have a typo there, but the A-G's submission is the first revocation gets a free pass. That seems to me very strange.

If the government announced revocation on 28 March and a second Article 50 on 29 March I do not think that abuse happens on the 29 March only.

Mueller stuff is supposed to be dropping in the next episode week or two, potentially with a brexit angle. It's good to see the threads finally coming together. I'm not sure exactly how Stormy Daniels is going to prevent Brexit but that seems to be where it's headed.

What is stopping brexit is a majority of mps never wanted to do it at all and an unholy alliance of brexit ultras and remainers are seizing the chance created by an even crapper deal than expected to manufacture staying in.

Mueller stuff is supposed to be dropping in the next episode week or two, potentially with a brexit angle. It's good to see the threads finally coming together. I'm not sure exactly how Stormy Daniels is going to prevent Brexit but that seems to be where it's headed.

What is stopping brexit is a majority of mps never wanted to do it at all and an unholy alliance of brexit ultras and remainers are seizing the chance created by an even crapper deal than expected to manufacture staying in.

Probably should have thought of that before they voted to invoke Article 50 but hey-ho.

I think the last Attorney General to become PM was Spencer Perceval - and he ended up being shot.

That said, I think it's a good tip from Mike. The cabinet is not overflowing with talent and Cox is not readily identified with any faction, which is always an advantage - and would be a *huge* advantage were a consensus leader needed in extreme circumstances, such as the government having just lost a VoNC.

There's a plaque on a house wall in my nearest town, St Neots, commemorating his assassin.

They should allow head teachers to ban any pupils not immunised from schools.

If the other parents have their children immunised there is nothing to be concerned about for those parents. No we should not make it a crime, a quite ridiculous suggestion. We are still, (in spite of the referendum) a liberal democracy, and we should not force medical treatment on anyone or their children against their wishes.

Mueller stuff is supposed to be dropping in the next episode week or two, potentially with a brexit angle. It's good to see the threads finally coming together. I'm not sure exactly how Stormy Daniels is going to prevent Brexit but that seems to be where it's headed.

What is stopping brexit is a majority of mps never wanted to do it at all and an unholy alliance of brexit ultras and remainers are seizing the chance created by an even crapper deal than expected to manufacture staying in.

Probably should have thought of that before they voted to invoke Article 50 but hey-ho.

Well yes. Lucky for them revocation is possible otherwise no deal was very real no matter how they cried about it, since most of them triggered a50.

Mueller stuff is supposed to be dropping in the next episode week or two, potentially with a brexit angle. It's good to see the threads finally coming together. I'm not sure exactly how Stormy Daniels is going to prevent Brexit but that seems to be where it's headed.

What is stopping brexit is a majority of mps never wanted to do it at all and an unholy alliance of brexit ultras and remainers are seizing the chance created by an even crapper deal than expected to manufacture staying in.

The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?

So Brexit would be blocked forever ? Lol.

It is certainly a defect in logic in the opinion.

It would be much cleaner to say that it would be abusive to revoke A50 unilaterally in circumstances where MS intends to re-serve also immediately.

The opinion makes clear it would be for the ECJ to decide what counts as an abusive practice. But it would not be the second invocation of A50 that was the potentially abusive practice, but the second revocation.

ECJ has given the UK a Mulligan on Brexit.

Not sure if you have a typo there, but the A-G's submission is the first revocation gets a free pass. That seems to me very strange.

If the government announced revocation on 28 March and a second Article 50 on 29 March I do not think that abuse happens on the 29 March only.

It would depend on the linkage I expect between the two.

Say, we revoke on 28th March. Government falls. New election with the Tories being controlled by the ERG and they win an election on the basis they were re-submitt Art50.

Then i think the 'new' claim would be valid, as there was no linkage between the first removal and the second notifiation.

Mueller stuff is supposed to be dropping in the next episode week or two, potentially with a brexit angle. It's good to see the threads finally coming together. I'm not sure exactly how Stormy Daniels is going to prevent Brexit but that seems to be where it's headed.

The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?

So Brexit would be blocked forever ? Lol.

It is certainly a defect in logic in the opinion.

It would be much cleaner to say that it would be abusive to revoke A50 unilaterally in circumstances where MS intends to re-serve also immediately.

The opinion makes clear it would be for the ECJ to decide what counts as an abusive practice. But it would not be the second invocation of A50 that was the potentially abusive practice, but the second revocation.

ECJ has given the UK a Mulligan on Brexit.

Not sure if you have a typo there, but the A-G's submission is the first revocation gets a free pass. That seems to me very strange.

If the government announced revocation on 28 March and a second Article 50 on 29 March I do not think that abuse happens on the 29 March only.

It would depend on the linkage I expect between the two.

Say, we revoke on 28th March. Government falls. New election with the Tories being controlled by the ERG and they win an election on the basis they were re-submitt Art50.

Then i think the 'new' claim would be valid, as there was no linkage between the first removal and the second notifiation.

I agree - I had chosen 28th/29th to imply the same people in charge but happy to clarify.

The A-G seems to think the abuse could never be on the 28th, even though, in those circumstances the UK should surely be 'out' not in.

He is a barrister - intelligent and articulate - which does put him head and shoulders above most. However, a PM needs to be able to lead, direct and master a whole range of subjects. I am not convinced as yet Cox has those qualities nor is a team player and leader. I am not sure I would trust him with issues like the economy, the NHS, welfare, defence etc Cox might well be able to provide clear and credible policies on those issues but in politics and policies he is untried and untested. Being better than muppets like May, Hammond, Jarvid and Hunt isn’t saying much. I want someone with a good business brain - if there is anyone - to take over from May who can’t leave soon enough. Clarke, but for his views on Europe, would have been ideal but too old now.